Of course, you’ll be pilloried for pointing that out.
Fatmopsays
Yeah, but since when do jerks care what people call us?
Opisthokontsays
Of course, that cartoon asks not to be taken seriously, because St Peter is shown to be left-handed, and as we all know, left-handed people are the instruments of Satan. Then again, I am myself both left-handed and an atheist, so what do I know?
kmarissasays
St. Peter simply has a monstrously long right forearm, resting across the book.
Oh, you of little faith.
Wait…
Scott Hatfieldsays
When a jerk embraces Christianity, they don’t advance to sainthood. They become a Christian jerk, and (like most of us) remain a work in progress. The same thing is true for non-believers, though (and this is just my opinion) I often find the latter to be more overtly scrupulous in their dealings with others, since they are totally accountable for their own choices. They can no longer hide behind “Jesus says” or “the devil made me do it.”
Well, no, there isn’t that requirement for atheists. But being non-jerky and not being into spreading the non-faith gets you called a Chamberlain.
Sonjasays
One great irony of being an atheist and therefore being right is that, as an atheist, we know there is no ultimate judgment of our lives but, being right, we secretly wish there was.
;-)
stogoesays
No, that’s not it. Sorry, Badgey. What makes you a ‘Chamberlain’ is licking the ballsweat of the religious, denouncing your brethren as ‘shrill’ or ‘militant’ and being aghast at our proud ‘outness’, all so the religious won’t call you a heathen to your face. You’ve become enslaved so much by religious omnipresence that you can’t imagine freedom from religion any more. You don’t talk about controversial things. You’re well-trained. You’re their pet, their token atheist, just like their token gay and black and feminist friends. You’re articulate, polite, well-spoken, clean. You make them feel better about their bigotry.
Hang on, are you actually implying that no atheist ever engages in “being a jerk about it” behavior regarding his or her atheism? Wow, I think I’d have to disagree there.
I don’t think that’s it at all (altough I’m not sure I agree with what PZ’s actually saying anyway.)
Badger,
I’d bet that using expressions like “spreading the non-faith” and equating it with “being jerky” is part of what gets you called a “Chamberlain”.
Nicksays
While on the topic of atheists/jerks/religion/etc, consider this piece by Dane Cook on his encounter with an atheist. Dane Cook on YouTube
Those last 30 seconds have changed the way I look at that guy.
Hang on, are you actually implying that no atheist ever engages in “being a jerk about it” behavior regarding his or her atheism? Wow, I think I’d have to disagree there.
On the contrary, I think PZ’s choice of title indicates that he knows full well atheists can be just as big jerks as anybody else. But the only consequences to being a jerk happen down here on Earth.
I’d bet that using expressions like “spreading the non-faith” and equating it with “being jerky” is part of what gets you called a “Chamberlain”.
Probably. But if you accept, as most of us I would imagine do, that Mormons, evangelicals, etc. are being jerks by trying to convert *us* when we aren’t interested, why is it so hard to understand that non-atheists find similar behavior on our part equally jerky?
Numadsays
Did I give you the impression that I wanted to debate this?
SteveCsays
Hey, if being a jerk was good enough for Jesus, why not for the rest of the Christians? The Bible pretty much demands that one be a jerk.
Maybe that’s Jesus in the picture?
Aureola Nominee, FCDsays
…except that attacking the big strawman of equating “spreading the non-faith” with being outspoken about our atheism is a big, BIG instance of being a jerk. AND a Chamberlain.
JasonTDsays
Did I give you the impression that I wanted to debate this?
You posted a comment on a blog and addressed him by name. Sounds like the start of a debate to me.
Numadsays
JasonTD,
“You posted a comment on a blog and addressed him by name. Sounds like the start of a debate to me.”
That’s not really true, just as PZ posting this blog entry can’t be said to have sounded like him wanting to start a debate on Jonathan Badger being called a “Chamberlain”.
But it was taken as such by Jonathan Badger, just like Jonathan Badger is now taking my reply as an invitation to continue on his (apparent) favorite tangent. It’s not.
The “Supreme Jerk of the Universe” always agrees completely with each of them. This suggests that the “Supreme Jerk of the Universe” represents their personal opinion which they project into a god belief.
Alexander Vargassays
Hey, “Jerks”
I guess heaven was the only thing stopping some current atheists from being jerks.
Almost as cute as that prefabricated answer-rant by stogoe.
The roots of old bad religion show up still… splitting people into “good” or “evil”, adding some paranoia… and, of course, being Jerks
Scott Simmonssays
Sonja: “One great irony of being an atheist and therefore being right is that, as an atheist, we know there is no ultimate judgment of our lives but, being right, we secretly wish there was.”
Sucks, doesn’t it? We can’t say “I told you so!” until after we’re all dead. But if we’re right, then after we’re dead, we won’t be able to say “I told you so,” because we’ll be too busy decomposing. And I just know that I’ll have relatives at my funeral saying, “Well, at least he’s in a better place now,” and I won’t be able to argue with them. :-(
I think it’s quite appropriate he refers to this as a “race to the bottom.”
Psst. Cal. Buddy. You win.
Anton Matessays
But if you accept, as most of us I would imagine do, that Mormons, evangelicals, etc. are being jerks by trying to convert *us* when we aren’t interested,
I certainly don’t accept that. It’s fairly inconvenient for me to have them try to convert me when I’m not interested, but why would it make them jerks? They’d be jerks if they didn’t try to make me see the truth about the universe, especially if it could decide my fate for the rest of eternity. I have much less respect for people who think I’m severely deluded and/or doomed, but don’t bother trying an intervention because they don’t want to be rude or something.
I certainly don’t accept that. It’s fairly inconvenient for me to have them try to convert me when I’m not interested, but why would it make them jerks? They’d be jerks if they didn’t try to make me see the truth about the universe
Really? I guess that’s a “charitable” way to think about it. I have to admit that the only times I turn into a “militant” atheist is when some bozo tries to “save” me. Ultimately such people make the unwarranted assumption that the “unsaved” people are incapable of making their own decisions. That’s what’s jerky.
Stogoesays
Hallo, Vargas! Our well-grammared trolls return. I for one would like to know how my post calling Badgey an atheist ‘Uncle Tom’ seemed in any way prefab. I’d much like to improve it so it can be much more scathing. I mean, bowing and scraping for some small scrap of recognition from the godd-botherers, honestly.
Numadsays
Bah, what’s the point of being flippant if everybody else takes the time to be more articulate?
The term “god botherers” always makes me laugh. It describes them so well.
Jasonsays
Jonathan Badger,
But if you accept, as most of us I would imagine do, that Mormons, evangelicals, etc. are being jerks by trying to convert *us* when we aren’t interested,
Speak for yourself. I’m an atheist and I don’t consider Mormons or anyone else to be “jerks” merely for trying to persuade me to adopt their beliefs. I might consider particular individuals or orgnaizations to be jerks if their behavior were intrusive or disruptive to my life, in the manner of persistent telemarketers or the like, but simply using the media (books, magazines, TV stations, the internet, etc.) to proselytize one’s beliefs is a basic feature of a free society. If you object to the exercise of free speech, including religious speech, I think you’re the jerk.
but simply using the media (books, magazines, TV stations, the internet, etc.) to proselytize one’s beliefs is a basic feature of a free society. If you object to the exercise of free speech, including religious speech, I think you’re the jerk.
Saying (via the media) “This is what we believe and why; we hope this may convince you and if this interests you please contact organization x for further information” is all fine and good. Saying “This is what we believe and you are evil, damned, and/or stupid for believing otherwise” is pretty jerky — and I feel that way even when people are promoting opinions I agree with. Of course people have the *right* to exercise their free speech in a jerky manner; that isn’t the point.
Jasonsays
Jonathan Badger,
Saying “This is what we believe and you are evil, damned, and/or stupid for believing otherwise” is pretty jerky
I believe that religious adherents typically think in “stupid” ways (that is, in unreasonable, uncritical, irrational ways) and behave in “evil” ways (that is, in highly unethical ways) when it comes to their religion. I also believe, per Richard Dawkins, that belief in God is a kind of delusion. If you object to the public expression of these beliefs about God and religion, you’re the jerk.
I believe that religious adherents typically think in “stupid” ways (that is, in unreasonable, uncritical, irrational ways) and behave in “evil” ways (that is, in highly unethical ways) when it comes to their religion. I also believe, per Richard Dawkins, that belief in God is a kind of delusion.
Can you *really* not see that’s *exactly* the way theists see atheists? Ignore for a second the conviction that you’re right. It’s like the Christians mentioned here a few months back that were discomforted when a group of Buddhists gave a prayer during a football game and couldn’t figure out that’s what non-Christians feel during Christian prayer.
Chinchillazillasays
And I just know that I’ll have relatives at my funeral saying, “Well, at least he’s in a better place now,” and I won’t be able to argue with them. :-(
Ooh, that gives me an idea. I think I’ll have a sign put over my coffin saying “I’m burning in Hell now.” I mean, I won’t believe it, but it’d be worth it to make certain relatives uncomfortable.
Alexander Vargassays
Stogoe, you can say all of that, anytime you bump into any “non-jerk” if you want but, moved by compassion, I suggest you wouldn’t, cause its freaking funny. Gays and black people must be jerks, or be “uncle toms”, hahaha the whole friggin paranoid thing is hilarious.
Keep it up boys, this is fun. Interestingly, Dawkins is not an ill-manered jerk. He mostly says some incredibly silly prejudiced things, which are ultimately worse for himself.
Truth is, anyone can tell that being a jerk simply does not work as far as furthering the acknowledgment of evolution goes.
Oh, I forgot, evolution is a minor issue when it comes to the greater “war on religion”.
truth machinesays
Well, no, there isn’t that requirement for atheists. But being non-jerky and not being into spreading the non-faith gets you called a Chamberlain.
You seemed like less of a jerk when you were being disemvoweled.
truth machinesays
Hang on, are you actually implying that no atheist ever engages in “being a jerk about it” behavior regarding his or her atheism?
Uh, no, but thanks for playing the “basic comprehension” game, and better luck next time.
Anton Matessays
That’s a new way of looking at it. By that logic, I suppose I can’t fault the “God Hates Fags” types for trying to save all those homosouls from hell.
I don’t think you can, no. They’re drastically and dangerously wrong, but not evil–if God really did hate fags, wouldn’t it be important to tell people?
I’d fault them for apparent approval of God’s being a bloodthirsty homophobe, though. At least they could look unhappy about it.
Anton Matessays
Really? I guess that’s a “charitable” way to think about it. I have to admit that the only times I turn into a “militant” atheist is when some bozo tries to “save” me. Ultimately such people make the unwarranted assumption that the “unsaved” people are incapable of making their own decisions. That’s what’s jerky.
But people often are incapable of making their own decisions. They don’t have the necessary knowledge, or critical thinking skills. And sometimes their decision is a very important one. Isn’t that why we have political campaigns, and public service announcements, and public education?
If you decided that stabbing yourself in the eye with a fork would be fun and harmless, I would much rather intervene than respect your decision. And fork-in-the-eye can’t hold a candle to Hell.
Anton Matessays
Can you *really* not see that’s *exactly* the way theists see atheists? Ignore for a second the conviction that you’re right. It’s like the Christians mentioned here a few months back that were discomforted when a group of Buddhists gave a prayer during a football game and couldn’t figure out that’s what non-Christians feel during Christian prayer.
Sure, but it doesn’t follow that the Christians aren’t right and the Buddhists wrong (or vice versa). Just because both sides feel the same about the other guy doesn’t mean both sides are equally correct.
idlemindsays
If you decided that stabbing yourself in the eye with a fork would be fun and harmless, I would much rather intervene than respect your decision. And fork-in-the-eye can’t hold a candle to Hell.
Well, I have just as much right to intervene with you in an attempt to prevent you from wasting your one and only life believing in such obvious nonsense. To me, wasting the only life I’ll ever have is as grievous as your concept of hell.
So put that damn fork down, Anton, before someone gets hurt.
Sure, but it doesn’t follow that the Christians aren’t right and the Buddhists wrong (or vice versa). Just because both sides feel the same about the other guy doesn’t mean both sides are equally correct.
Of course not. But that isn’t the point. One doesn’t have to be a relativist to find presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold objectionable.
But people often are incapable of making their own decisions. They don’t have the necessary knowledge, or critical thinking skills. And sometimes their decision is a very important one. Isn’t that why we have political campaigns, and public service announcements, and public education?
Sure, it’s important to make information available. Good education and public service announcements make information available to people so that they can make decisions for themselves — telling people that narcotics can cause health problems is not the same as saying they’re evil or that drug users are idiots.
I’m not so sure about the worth of political campaigns; they are mostly about rhetoric and not information. “Vote for Bob; he loves America. Bob — the choice for a renewed America”. Ideally, we wouldn’t need campaigns and because we could just consult a publicly available resource that would detail every politician’s opinion on each issue and simply find the best match to our own.
If you decided that stabbing yourself in the eye with a fork would be fun and harmless, I would much rather intervene than respect your decision.
I’d think I’d have a perfect right to stab myself in the eye if I wanted to. If I starting stabbing *other* people in the eye, then you (or preferably the authorities) should intervene.
Stogoesays
Vargas actually makes an accidental point up there at 39 when he says (jokingly) that evolution is just one scuffle in the larger struggle. In that he’s right. Religion has a strangle hold on society and we have a duty to try and save the victim.
Also, he didn’t actually respond to anything I said.
I’ll break it down for you. Atheists are an oppressed class, much like GLBTs and women and all sorts of people with non-white skin colors. People of oppressed classes who dare to speak out against their oppression are called ‘shrill’, ‘agitators’, ‘militant’, ‘feminazis’ in order to shut them up. To make the problem go away. To scare the oppressed class into submission.
Much like Ann Coulter, Badgey and the so-called Chamberlains get adulation and head-pats from the ruling class for tearing down and shutting up the class to which they belong (coulter – women among others, Badgey – atheists), although I would probably say that Coulter gets paid more than Badgey.
When Badgey yells at us not to make waves, not to confront the christians with the blatant falsitude of their hurtful beliefs, to pipe down so the christianists can take over, that’s unacceptable.
“So what?” asks Badgey. “Let them be deluded, the stupid masses. You’re not being harmed.”
Oh, but I am. Religion drives the explosively stupid bus into the Government every single day, throwing up laws that destroy American lives, and it’s all propped up by those who need to believe to get through the day. They’re holding the hierarchy up with their dollars and tears, and it has brought us only war and shame. The top-down approach to dismantling this evil won’t work.
Also, I’m saying he licks Jesus’ ballsweat.
Chrissays
I believe that religious adherents typically think in “stupid” ways (that is, in unreasonable, uncritical, irrational ways) and behave in “evil” ways (that is, in highly unethical ways) when it comes to their religion. I also believe, per Richard Dawkins, that belief in God is a kind of delusion.
Can you *really* not see that’s *exactly* the way theists see atheists? Ignore for a second the conviction that you’re right.
Should he also ignore the scientific evidence that he’s right? Chapter 4 of Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians deals with authoritarianism and fundamentalism, and surprise surprise, fundamentalists really *do* act pretty much exactly the way Jason believes they act (and much more so than non-fundamentalists).
The definition of “delusion” is a little more slippery, but it certainly is a belief not supported by credible evidence. If someone had equally strong faith in Santa Claus, fairies or Bertrand Russell’s teapot, they probably would be classified as deluded.
It’s like the Christians mentioned here a few months back that were discomforted when a group of Buddhists gave a prayer during a football game and couldn’t figure out that’s what non-Christians feel during Christian prayer.
Interestingly, this also describes quite well Christian attitudes to non-Christians (including atheists) attempting to promote their beliefs. They think it’s really horribly wrong and see no connection whatsoever to their own aggressive (sometimes literally) promotion of their own beliefs. (Altemeyer documents this one too.)
Certainly, when I heard about the group of people going door-to-door to promote atheism, I’d say that anyone whose door they knock on has the right to tell them to get lost, just like I have the right to tell door-to-door Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or any other proselytizers to get lost. That’s religious equality. (Personally I wouldn’t describe such behavior as “jerky” as long as they actually do leave when you ask them to, and aren’t rude or threatening. Others may disagree, though.) But I don’t think anyone got death threats for writing The Purpose-Driven Life or numerous other books on why you should accept Jesus… so why should Dawkins get death and hell threats for The God Delusion? That’s not equal at all.
Torbjörn Larssonsays
What I learn from Jonathan Badger is that I’m not enough of a jerk, while ironically he is according to his definition, trying to tell me both how to think and act.
If making my views heard is being a jerk, I am now inspired to work harder on earning my jerkhood.
Interestingly, Dawkins is not an ill-manered jerk. He mostly says some incredibly silly prejudiced things,
Vargas always manage to say some incredibly silly and funny things to show us just how ill conceived most of his thoughts really are. I can’t think of many people having such considered opinions as Dawkins – and he has written several books laying them out.
Of course Vargas have to characterize his troll focus as making “prejudiced” statements. But the rest of us hear the echo.
Torbjörn Larssonsays
What I learn from Jonathan Badger is that I’m not enough of a jerk, while ironically he is according to his definition, trying to tell me both how to think and act.
If making my views heard is being a jerk, I am now inspired to work harder on earning my jerkhood.
Interestingly, Dawkins is not an ill-manered jerk. He mostly says some incredibly silly prejudiced things,
Vargas always manage to say some incredibly silly and funny things to show us just how ill conceived most of his thoughts really are. I can’t think of many people having such considered opinions as Dawkins – and he has written several books laying them out.
Of course Vargas have to characterize his troll focus as making “prejudiced” statements. But the rest of us hear the echo.
Torbjörn Larssonsays
“I am now inspired to work harder on earning my jerkhood.” Oh, and I forgot to add: And this is a start. ;-)
Torbjörn Larssonsays
“I am now inspired to work harder on earning my jerkhood.” Oh, and I forgot to add: And this is a start. ;-)
Jasonsays
Jonathan Badger,
Can you *really* not see that’s *exactly* the way theists see atheists?
I think some theists see atheists in that way. I’m not sure what relevance you think that has to your “jerky” nonsense.
What I learn from Jonathan Badger is that I’m not enough of a jerk, while ironically he is according to his definition, trying to tell me both how to think and act.
I’m not the boss of you and I’m not going to say you are evil or stupid for thinking and acting the way you do (assuming you aren’t going to go on a murderous rampage or something). I may *disagree* with you and say so and why in some cases, but that’s not the same thing. Not being a jerk doesn’t mean never disagreeing with anyone.
Jason:
I think some theists see atheists in that way. I’m not sure what relevance you think that has to your “jerky” nonsense.
Fair enough. Not all, but *some*. The ones that want to “save” the “evil”, “deluded” unbelievers and can’t figure out that we’re not interested. The ones that, if you are truly being serious, you don’t find jerky at all (although I do). That’s the relevance.
Bob Altemeyersays
Thanks for the plug for the website where I am publishing “The Authoritarians.” And yes, research confirms a lot of stereotypes about religious fundamentalists, and even shows us some things I at least did not imagine. But since the topic here is atheists, there has been some scientific research done on what atheists are like, including the active atheists who are most in the public’s eye. Some warts, many laudable things. It’s in our book, with Bruce Hunsberger, “Atheists” published last year by Prometheus Press. (But this one people will have to buy.)
Jasonsays
Jonathan Badger,
I’m still waiting for you to explain what is “jerky” about holding and expressing the view that religious belief is unreasonable and irrational (that is, to use your word, “stupid”) and that it frequently leads people to behave in highly unethical (that is, “evil”) ways. I’m sorry if you don’t like to see that view expressed, but your tender sensibilities will just have to deal with it.
Jasonsays
Should he also ignore the scientific evidence that he’s right? Chapter 4 of Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians deals with authoritarianism and fundamentalism, and surprise surprise, fundamentalists really *do* act pretty much exactly the way Jason believes they act (and much more so than non-fundamentalists).
I don’t think it’s limited to fundamentalists. I think religious moderates also deserve the criticism. Take, say, Andrew Sullivan. He is an educated and intelligent man, but when it comes to discussing religion and his own religious beliefs in particular he becomes a blithering idiot–irrational, disingenuous, evasive, foolish. I think his posts in his exchange with Sam Harris demonstrate these qualities in spades.
Hairheadsays
Whenever in this thread did people get the idea the “being a jerk” was synonymous with “proslytizing”? Proslytizing can be done politely and non-offensively, and if done so, the proslytizer is not a jerk.
“Being-a-jerk-about-it” to me means something like: “Hi, I am a Christian, basking in the light of the Lord’s love, guaranteed a place at his right hand after I die, to live in ecstacy for all eternity.”
Homeless person: “Good morning, I am hungry. Can you help me?”
Jerk: “Fuck off, dude, help yourself, like my Lord says.”
Basically, “being-a-jerk-about-being-Christian” to me means to be self-righteously pompous while acting against the declared basic tenets of the faith.
And while Bronze Dog didn’t say that Scott Adams is a dick, I can. Scott, you’re a dick.
I’m still waiting for you to explain what is “jerky” about holding and expressing the view that religious belief is unreasonable and irrational (that is, to use your word, “stupid”) and that it frequently leads people to behave in highly unethical (that is, “evil”) ways.
If you really don’t find the theists that feel the same way about atheism to be jerks (as I do), then I suppose it would be impossible for you to see how your behavior could be considered jerky.
I’m sorry if you don’t like to see that view expressed, but your tender sensibilities will just have to deal with it.
It’s hardly my sensibilities which are the issue, although I have to admit that I find being an atheist a bit like being a Linux or Macintosh user (which I also am) — the smugness of some of the Linux and Mac fanboys and their rants against Microsoft can even make fellow users like myself roll their eyes.
Alexander Vargassays
Larsson, I am truly sorry that you are incapable of distinguishing silliness when Dawkins talks. Most people know he has said truly very silly things.
Further you seem not to be able to distinguish between academia and best-seller paperback writing. Wake up. The only place where dawkins is taken seriously is at the level of the amateur crowds into naïve scientism. Evolutionary biology? Dawkins has been nobody to the field for most of his time now. Philosophy, history, social sciences? After all, these are the areas to which dawkins is supposedly directing his attention. Again, no merits to overcome academic indifference to his contributions in these fields. This is obvious: Dawkins views in these fileds are simplistic declamations of the excat kind we may expect from a a scientistic “moralizer of reason”. These views are false, and prejudiced indeed.
stogoesays
Vargas once again provides no examples and proves himself the Incarnation of the Courtier’s Reply.
Steve_Csays
HA! I really laughed out loud at that.
Alexander Vargassays
Of course the entire scientistic thing is silly, but Dawkins has given us some specially silly “pearls” to collect that even you guys should be able to recognize… but then again, maybe you can’t. I myself can only laugh at ideas such as keeping saddam alive for experiments…go ahead, you may defend it if you want, but don’t expect much of a response from me. I have no interest in debating about something that is obviously stupid as if it weren’t
Don_Csays
|Then again, I am myself both left-handed and an atheist
Wow, That would make you the athiest.
Jasonsays
Jonathan Badger,
If you really don’t find the theists that feel the same way about atheism to be jerks ….
I don’t, no. I think they’re wrong to think that, but being wrong is not the same thing as being a jerk. Some of them are jerks anyway, but not for that reason.
… then I suppose it would be impossible for you to see how your behavior could be considered jerky.
No, it’s not impossible. Do you have an actual argument to offer in support of your claim?
It’s hardly my sensibilities which are the issue
On the contrary, I think this is all about your tender sensibilities.
Steve_Csays
He doesn’t believe in the death penalty.
And what is stupid about studying someone like Saddam in order to better understand the mind of a tyrannical murderer?
We have no interest debating your stupid arguments either.
stogoesays
Oh, Vargas got the vapors when mean ol mista Dawkins spoke up against the hanging of Saddam as terrorporn.
Alexander Vargassays
No, I got the giggles, because dawkins is giving science as a reason not to hang him. I guess dawkins really needs that, since he is all about “moralizing” through science. Otherwise he might not have found any compelling reason why saddam should not have been hanged. Cute.
I am against death penalty, but for other reasons. You guys don’t get it, ever. See why debating with you guys can be so boring? Specially when you are intent on “licking the sweat of Dawkins balls” (in the language of Stogoe).
stogoesays
Did you miss the whole opening to that opinion piece, Vargas? If you had, you’d have seen ‘among the many other good reasons not to hang this despot, we could have learned the workings of despotic madness from him’ (paraphrase).
Go back to your terrorporn, Vargas. You don’t make any sense.
Alexander Vargassays
So, we agree that the reason given by Dawkins is at least superfluous; there are many others, and if we had to choose, nobody would choose Dawkins’s reason.
I just want to add that as well as being superfluous, it is sloppy, silly speculation of the paperback-selling type. How does dawkins plan to obtain anything information we don’t already know about dictators? Exactly what he had in mind to do to Saddam? All alternatives I can think of are hilarious.
Vargas, we went over this quite some time ago, and your repetition is really, really tedious. It may be time to give you another time-out.
Alexander Vargassays
I was wondering, how come I am not disemvowelled already? After all I am exposing Dawkins. That gets me disemvowelled here almost every time!
OK PZ, I’m not interested in keeeping on, so don’t worry. You can keep your record of non- censoring for some while longer, but seriously: you should allow people to express whatever they think about dawkins, PZ. That’s the right thing, what is best for all. It can’t be that you allow jerkness when talking about anyone *but* Dawkins. Allow people to criticize dawkins in any tone they want. It is as simple as that.
Basil Fawltysays
Alexander Vargas | February 7, 2007 05:39 PM
(sniffs)
Do I detect the smell of burning martyr?
Anton Matessays
Well, I have just as much right to intervene with you in an attempt to prevent you from wasting your one and only life believing in such obvious nonsense. To me, wasting the only life I’ll ever have is as grievous as your concept of hell.
That’s exactly what I’m trying to explain to Jonathan. Neither a believer nor an unbeliever is being a jerk if they try to convert someone for the sake of his quality of life, or to make him a better contributor to society. (At least) one of them’s factually wrong, but they’re both doing good as best they can.
Anton Matessays
Sure, it’s important to make information available. Good education and public service announcements make information available to people so that they can make decisions for themselves —
Public education does a lot more than make information available to people. It forces people to sit down for several hours per weekday, until they’re 18 or Amish, and learn the information. Mandatory schooling is far more intrusive than a dozen Jehovah’s Witnesses–but most of us accept it, because there are some things that people really need to learn. Whether or not they “decide” to.
telling people that narcotics can cause health problems is not the same as saying they’re evil or that drug users are idiots.
I think you’ve changed direction here. Originally your complaint was that it’s jerky to be too into conversion and “spreading the non-faith.” What does that have to do with whether or not you call people names?
I’d think I’d have a perfect right to stab myself in the eye if I wanted to. If I starting stabbing *other* people in the eye, then you (or preferably the authorities) should intervene.
So if someone said “Hmm, I wonder what happens if I stab myself in the eye? Better try it and see!”, you wouldn’t say, “Now hold on, that’s a terrible idea. Let me tell you why you really don’t want to do that?” You’d just let them make their decision without intruding?
Huh.
Ichthyicsays
Truth is, anyone can tell that being a jerk simply does not work as far as furthering the acknowledgment of evolution goes.
neither does being an idiot, as you prove to us whenever you regail us with your “thoughts”, Vargas.
I think you’ve changed direction here. Originally your complaint was that it’s jerky to be too into conversion and “spreading the non-faith.” What does that have to do with whether or not you call people names?
Not really. It stems from the same source; the idea that people that one disagrees with must be evil or stupid and must therefore be converted. Once one realizes that others are not necessarily stupid or evil and have simply come to a different conclusion the motivation for conversion disappears. This is true for religion (or lack thereof), politics, and operating system choice.
<>I find being an atheist a bit like being a Linux or Macintosh user
Except that religion does a lot more actual harm than Microsoft.
beibanjinsays
I just became an atheist rather recently, after years of head-scratching agnosticism, and here’s my reasoning, which I wonder if someone would comment on, either positively or negatively. To me the whole thing boils down to a willingness to understand that the world does not bend to your own personal wishes. One of the big shocks of childhood for all of us is the realization that we and everyone we love will die one day. It would be nice if it wasn’t true, but there you have it, and when a child gets his head around this fact and accepts it, his parents are proud: he’s taken a step toward maturity. But THEN we’re all supposed to buy into the idea, on no credible evidence whatsoever, that death isn’t really the end, and those of us who live “righteously” will have eternal life after all? What is the decision to seize at this idea, if not a step backward from maturity? That’s what religious people are to me: not evil, not deluded…just not entirely grown up.
Torbjörn Larssonsays
Jonathan:
Not being a jerk doesn’t mean never disagreeing with anyone.
This started because you implied non-Chamberlain atheists were jerks. Here you say that disagreement is allowed. All non-Chamberlain atheists do is disagree with theists, in “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold”.
And that is what this is about. Either you agree that one can state general opinions without being a jerk. Or you disagree by presenting your general opinion as the only one we should hold, in which case you are a jerk by your own definition.
Alexander:
Larsson, I am truly sorry that you are incapable of distinguishing silliness when Dawkins talks.
Strawman. I didn’t claim he hadn’t said silly things. I objected to your characterizing his thoughts as prejudiced.
Further you seem not to be able to distinguish between academia and best-seller paperback writing.
Another strawman. I wasn’t discussing his science – I was discussing his opinions.
And as several has noted, in his writings about religion he is targeting the religious, not the theologists. The Courtiers Response is becoming tedious. And false. And prejudiced.
Torbjörn Larssonsays
Jonathan:
Not being a jerk doesn’t mean never disagreeing with anyone.
This started because you implied non-Chamberlain atheists were jerks. Here you say that disagreement is allowed. All non-Chamberlain atheists do is disagree with theists, in “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold”.
And that is what this is about. Either you agree that one can state general opinions without being a jerk. Or you disagree by presenting your general opinion as the only one we should hold, in which case you are a jerk by your own definition.
Alexander:
Larsson, I am truly sorry that you are incapable of distinguishing silliness when Dawkins talks.
Strawman. I didn’t claim he hadn’t said silly things. I objected to your characterizing his thoughts as prejudiced.
Further you seem not to be able to distinguish between academia and best-seller paperback writing.
Another strawman. I wasn’t discussing his science – I was discussing his opinions.
And as several has noted, in his writings about religion he is targeting the religious, not the theologists. The Courtiers Response is becoming tedious. And false. And prejudiced.
windysays
Anton Mates wrote: That’s exactly what I’m trying to explain to Jonathan. Neither a believer nor an unbeliever is being a jerk if they try to convert someone for the sake of his quality of life, or to make him a better contributor to society.
Wasn’t that the goal of gulags and re-education camps?
That’s what religious people are to me: not evil, not deluded…just not entirely grown up.
When I was religious, I cherished the thought that there was something out there that would care whether I lived or died even if no one else did. That was much more important to me than the thought of living forever (though that was a comfort as well). Human love seemed small and empty to me, because people can stop loving you, or die, or not be there when you need them. The idea of being utterly, completely alone with myself was too terrifying to imagine. When I stopped believing in a god, it took some time before I could really appreciate that human love, however fragile, is real, and that occasionally being the only one to care what I do isn’t the end of the world.
I think when most religious people ask why you would want to be good if there’s no god, they really want to know why you would want to live if there’s no god. I don’t think they imagine themselves raping and murdering with abandon if they ever stopped believing. I think they imagine themselves dying of despair.
beibanjinsays
Thanks for the input, junk science. I hadn’t thought about it that way before.
No windy. That wasn’t the goal of the gulags. Enemies of the state mean anything to you?
Anton wasn’t talking about obedience. Conversion can come about through conversation and education.
Alexander Vargassays
I’m just pointing out the fact that Dawkins’s opinions fail to be taken seriously by the academia. Do not delude yourselves into thinking he is a great scientist of intellectual. If this is a courtier reply, so be it! It is not less true for that, so I will point it out anyway. Academia is academia, pop writing is pop writing.
I understand that if you feel invaded by religion, and if you like science, yet are basically ignorant in philosophy and social sciences, Dawkins may make a very big impression on you. You may even love him.
But to those who have previously accumulated other readings, Dawkins does not impress. Rather, we can be apalled by the silliness of many of his statements. Does this really help atheism?
Steve_Csays
The record. It’s skips. Is it broken?
thwaitesays
Vargas:
You’ve made your opinion of Dawkins very clear, and very boring. Others, academics included, have other opinions of his corpus. Here’s a recent compendium, in fact it’s a festschrift with many useful essays:
Grafen is a behavioral ecologist; Ridley is an evolutionary biologist.
…and you’d be less boring if you enlarged your commentary to Dawkins’ conceptual origins which I’m confident you’re familiar with (in addition to his mentor Nikko Tinbergen): George Williams and W. D. Hamilton, both venerated academics.
You can do better. Please do.
Torbjörn Larssonsays
It is not less true for that, so I will point it out anyway.
But since the post was about no “not-being-a-jerk-about-it” requirement for atheists, your opinions about his academic status and silliness of his claims are both besides the point, and boring to boot.
You would be better off joining the original discussion instead.
Torbjörn Larssonsays
It is not less true for that, so I will point it out anyway.
But since the post was about no “not-being-a-jerk-about-it” requirement for atheists, your opinions about his academic status and silliness of his claims are both besides the point, and boring to boot.
You would be better off joining the original discussion instead.
windysays
No windy. That wasn’t the goal of the gulags. Enemies of the state mean anything to you?
And they were ostensibly being re-educated to become productive members of society :)
Anton wasn’t talking about obedience. Conversion can come about through conversation and education.
I had in mind also his earlier comment that the God-hates-fags types are not really being jerks – I guess, because they sincerely believe that they are saving other people from hell? But that would mean that the Spanish Inquisition were not being jerks either…
Alexander Vargassays
C’mon , thwaite. Invoking conceptual origins is not a very hot indicator of academic merit, isn’t it. Plus, you may not know this, but the names Williams and Hamilton are not greeted by as many “ooooh”s and “aaaaah”s in evolutionary biology as you may think…
Actually, Windy, the Inquisitors of the Spanish Inquisition didn’t care one wit about saving the souls of the ex-Jews, they were doing their jobs in order to raise money for the King of Spain’s coffers.
Alexander Vargassays
I do agree though that Williams and Hamilton are indeed “venerated” (good term) within specific schools of evolutionary biology. For example Icthyic. He belongs to that school and hardly acknowledges that paleontologists or developmental biologists should be allowed to call themselves evolutionary biologists. Not even Gould. Cute.
Population genetics is very popular because it gives mathematical formality to evolutionary theory, and it answers specific questions. But it can only help so far to understand evolution. It is badly wanting in biological detail. Further there is always some kind of “black box” of simply “given” conditions … how many times have we seen already that a basic biolgical reality or proximal mechanism required for a completely different model?
Mathematics is used everywhere in biology, but in many different forms for different questions, from technical to theoretical aspects. The math of population gentics is one of these, and it works pretty well for certain questions about…well, population genetics. Statistics developed its tools in that field and is currently applied outside of biology. There certainly is merit, but evolutionary theory is in no way realistically condensed within population genetics.
Mathematics is so popular right now, it seems to me nobody could revolutionize evolutionary theory without presenting a mathematical formalization.
Yet Darwin was able to make his point with a book on natural history… not all times have been so frivolous and interested in “appearing intelligent” as these.
This started because you implied non-Chamberlain atheists were jerks. Here you say that disagreement is allowed. All non-Chamberlain atheists do is disagree with theists, in “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold”.
The point is certain theists and certain atheists under discussion (not all of either category) *don’t* disagree in “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold”. They merely disagree on what the beliefs are.
And that is what this is about. Either you agree that one can state general opinions without being a jerk. Or you disagree by presenting your general opinion as the only one we should hold, in which case you are a jerk by your own definition.
Again no. Stating beliefs and even arguing in favor of those beliefs is not the same as “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold”.
Anton Matessays
I think you’ve changed direction here. Originally your complaint was that it’s jerky to be too into conversion and “spreading the non-faith.” What does that have to do with whether or not you call people names?
Not really. It stems from the same source; the idea that people that one disagrees with must be evil or stupid and must therefore be converted. Once one realizes that others are not necessarily stupid or evil and have simply come to a different conclusion the motivation for conversion disappears. This is true for religion (or lack thereof), politics, and operating system choice.
That seems exactly backwards to me. If people disagree with you because they’re evil or stupid, attempting conversion is pointless–all you can do is try to avoid them and minimize their power over you. But if people disagree with you but aren’t evil or stupid, then they might potentially see things your way if you made a good argument for it. Or you might change your mind and join them–either way, there’s a reason for dialogue.
Unless you’re just doing it to score brownie points within your own faith system, rather than in the hope that it’ll actually work, proselytization requires a certain amount of intellectual charity.
I’m totally concluding from this that God exists and that he wants me to have your posts days before you do. You cannot doubt in the face of conclusive proof!
Then again, you didn’t give me a link…so maybe only Satan exists.
Anton Matessays
I might add that the above is certainly true in the case of an ex-Pentecostal youth minister I know. While Christian, he was very zealous about conversion, and that precisely because he really likes people–he thinks they’re generally good enough and smart enough that they should and can understand the truth about the world.
(As a result of his sincere interest in conversion, he had a ton of arguments with atheists, read a lot of atheist literature and ended up becoming one himself. But I don’t think he was unique as a Christian who tried to convert out of compassion.)
Anton Matessays
Anton Mates wrote: That’s exactly what I’m trying to explain to Jonathan. Neither a believer nor an unbeliever is being a jerk if they try to convert someone for the sake of his quality of life, or to make him a better contributor to society.
Wasn’t that the goal of gulags and re-education camps?
Yep, as well as the goal of every national school system, Martin Luther King, and Jesus. Thus, high school, the civil rights movement and Christianity are all Stalin’s fault.
I had in mind also his earlier comment that the God-hates-fags types are not really being jerks – I guess, because they sincerely believe that they are saving other people from hell? But that would mean that the Spanish Inquisition were not being jerks either…
I don’t know the internal motivations of the inquisitors, but sure–I think there’s a fair likelihood many thought they were working for a good cause. Many others may have been consciously motivated by greed or sadism, of course.
I think it’s rather important to distinguish “This person is doing something I think will have negative effects” from “This person is evil.”
That seems exactly backwards to me. If people disagree with you because they’re evil or stupid, attempting conversion is pointless–all you can do is try to avoid them and minimize their power over you
You’d think so; but that’s not the way it seems to work in practice. Telling people that they’re hellbound, deluded servants of Microsoft, or as stupid as little children who believe in Santa, are unlikely to be effective tactics, but they are commonly used by certain groups of zealous converters.
But if people disagree with you but aren’t evil or stupid, then they might potentially see things your way if you made a good argument for it. Or you might change your mind and join them–either way, there’s a reason for dialogue.
Right. Dialogue (where both parties are actually interested in having the dialogue and one party isn’t just speaking *at* the other) can only exist when one accepts the other side isn’t stupid or evil. If someone notices that I’m not running Windows on my laptop, I’ll tell them that it’s Linux, and then (only if they seem interested) we can talk about operating systems and their relative advantages.
Unless you’re just doing it to score brownie points within your own faith system, rather than in the hope that it’ll actually work, proselytization requires a certain amount of intellectual charity.
There’s also the fact that it allows the proselytizer to feel superior to proselytizees.
Torbjörn Larssonsays
They merely disagree on what the beliefs are.
Certainly, as they should.
Stating beliefs and even arguing in favor of those beliefs is not the same as “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold”.
How is “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold” not a belief?
It could be annoying, but it is still just an opinion, or possibly a justified claim.
You also forgot to explain how your opinion that some general opinions should not be stated as they are does not make you a jerk by your own argument.
Torbjörn Larssonsays
They merely disagree on what the beliefs are.
Certainly, as they should.
Stating beliefs and even arguing in favor of those beliefs is not the same as “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold”.
How is “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold” not a belief?
It could be annoying, but it is still just an opinion, or possibly a justified claim.
You also forgot to explain how your opinion that some general opinions should not be stated as they are does not make you a jerk by your own argument.
How is “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold” not a belief?
Because it isn’t a belief. It’s a *behavior*.
You also forgot to explain how your opinion that some general opinions should not be stated as they are does not make you a jerk by your own argument.
No, as I’ve already stated, I’m not saying that people who disagree with me are either unintelligent or immoral. If I did, I would fully agree that I was being a jerk by doing so. But I’m not doing that.
Anton Matessays
You’d think so; but that’s not the way it seems to work in practice. Telling people that they’re hellbound, deluded servants of Microsoft, or as stupid as little children who believe in Santa, are unlikely to be effective tactics, but they are commonly used by certain groups of zealous converters.
I’m fairly confident very few people seriously try to convert someone else to their platform by telling them they’ll go to Hell for using the wrong OS.
Beyond that, though, you don’t want to confuse attacking an idea with attacking the person. An ethical and intelligent person may nonetheless be deluded in some area–or may be hellbound if certain religious beliefs are correct. If so, it’s rather important to demonstrate it so that, being ethical and intelligent, the person will change their mind.
Case in point: if belief in God is as silly for a modern adult as belief in Santa Claus, then it’s important that believers know that. Most of them are clearly smart enough to reject Santa Claus as adults, so hopefully they can do the same for God if they see the parallels between the concepts and evidence for same.
Unless you’re just doing it to score brownie points within your own faith system, rather than in the hope that it’ll actually work, proselytization requires a certain amount of intellectual charity.
There’s also the fact that it allows the proselytizer to feel superior to proselytizees.
That’s accomplished more quickly and easily by simply writing them off as inherently evil and stupid, and therefore not worth arguing with. Then you don’t risk finding out that they might be right about something.
Torbjörn Larssonsays
Because it isn’t a belief. It’s a *behavior*.
Presenting beliefs or opinions or justified claims, one time or many, is a behavior all right. What is your point here?
I’m not saying that people who disagree with me are either unintelligent or immoral.
Stating that people are unintelligent or immoral is an opinion, in the absence of measures. You have not proposed any measure to distinguish this opinion from other such. I get the impression that this is important for you – is it hard, and if it is why do you think it so?
And again, you have not yet explained how your opinion that some general opinions should not be stated as they are does not make you a jerk by your own argument. I repeat this since it is IMO the main problem with your view on free speech and how it should be valued.
Torbjörn Larssonsays
Because it isn’t a belief. It’s a *behavior*.
Presenting beliefs or opinions or justified claims, one time or many, is a behavior all right. What is your point here?
I’m not saying that people who disagree with me are either unintelligent or immoral.
Stating that people are unintelligent or immoral is an opinion, in the absence of measures. You have not proposed any measure to distinguish this opinion from other such. I get the impression that this is important for you – is it hard, and if it is why do you think it so?
And again, you have not yet explained how your opinion that some general opinions should not be stated as they are does not make you a jerk by your own argument. I repeat this since it is IMO the main problem with your view on free speech and how it should be valued.
Of course, you’ll be pilloried for pointing that out.
Yeah, but since when do jerks care what people call us?
Of course, that cartoon asks not to be taken seriously, because St Peter is shown to be left-handed, and as we all know, left-handed people are the instruments of Satan. Then again, I am myself both left-handed and an atheist, so what do I know?
St. Peter simply has a monstrously long right forearm, resting across the book.
Oh, you of little faith.
Wait…
When a jerk embraces Christianity, they don’t advance to sainthood. They become a Christian jerk, and (like most of us) remain a work in progress. The same thing is true for non-believers, though (and this is just my opinion) I often find the latter to be more overtly scrupulous in their dealings with others, since they are totally accountable for their own choices. They can no longer hide behind “Jesus says” or “the devil made me do it.”
Well, no, there isn’t that requirement for atheists. But being non-jerky and not being into spreading the non-faith gets you called a Chamberlain.
One great irony of being an atheist and therefore being right is that, as an atheist, we know there is no ultimate judgment of our lives but, being right, we secretly wish there was.
;-)
No, that’s not it. Sorry, Badgey. What makes you a ‘Chamberlain’ is licking the ballsweat of the religious, denouncing your brethren as ‘shrill’ or ‘militant’ and being aghast at our proud ‘outness’, all so the religious won’t call you a heathen to your face. You’ve become enslaved so much by religious omnipresence that you can’t imagine freedom from religion any more. You don’t talk about controversial things. You’re well-trained. You’re their pet, their token atheist, just like their token gay and black and feminist friends. You’re articulate, polite, well-spoken, clean. You make them feel better about their bigotry.
So even us jerks can go to atheist heaven?
Hang on, are you actually implying that no atheist ever engages in “being a jerk about it” behavior regarding his or her atheism? Wow, I think I’d have to disagree there.
Here is the illustration that goes with my ironic comment #7.
Elayne Riggs,
I don’t think that’s it at all (altough I’m not sure I agree with what PZ’s actually saying anyway.)
Badger,
I’d bet that using expressions like “spreading the non-faith” and equating it with “being jerky” is part of what gets you called a “Chamberlain”.
While on the topic of atheists/jerks/religion/etc, consider this piece by Dane Cook on his encounter with an atheist.
Dane Cook on YouTube
Those last 30 seconds have changed the way I look at that guy.
On the contrary, I think PZ’s choice of title indicates that he knows full well atheists can be just as big jerks as anybody else. But the only consequences to being a jerk happen down here on Earth.
Probably. But if you accept, as most of us I would imagine do, that Mormons, evangelicals, etc. are being jerks by trying to convert *us* when we aren’t interested, why is it so hard to understand that non-atheists find similar behavior on our part equally jerky?
Did I give you the impression that I wanted to debate this?
Hey, if being a jerk was good enough for Jesus, why not for the rest of the Christians? The Bible pretty much demands that one be a jerk.
Maybe that’s Jesus in the picture?
…except that attacking the big strawman of equating “spreading the non-faith” with being outspoken about our atheism is a big, BIG instance of being a jerk. AND a Chamberlain.
Did I give you the impression that I wanted to debate this?
You posted a comment on a blog and addressed him by name. Sounds like the start of a debate to me.
JasonTD,
“You posted a comment on a blog and addressed him by name. Sounds like the start of a debate to me.”
That’s not really true, just as PZ posting this blog entry can’t be said to have sounded like him wanting to start a debate on Jonathan Badger being called a “Chamberlain”.
But it was taken as such by Jonathan Badger, just like Jonathan Badger is now taking my reply as an invitation to continue on his (apparent) favorite tangent. It’s not.
Everyone can, at sometime, act like a jerk. It is just that god believers think they have the ultimate excuse to act like a jerk.
That’s because they think the Supreme Jerk of the Universe told them it was OK.
The “Supreme Jerk of the Universe” always agrees completely with each of them. This suggests that the “Supreme Jerk of the Universe” represents their personal opinion which they project into a god belief.
Hey, “Jerks”
I guess heaven was the only thing stopping some current atheists from being jerks.
Almost as cute as that prefabricated answer-rant by stogoe.
The roots of old bad religion show up still… splitting people into “good” or “evil”, adding some paranoia… and, of course, being Jerks
Sonja: “One great irony of being an atheist and therefore being right is that, as an atheist, we know there is no ultimate judgment of our lives but, being right, we secretly wish there was.”
Sucks, doesn’t it? We can’t say “I told you so!” until after we’re all dead. But if we’re right, then after we’re dead, we won’t be able to say “I told you so,” because we’ll be too busy decomposing. And I just know that I’ll have relatives at my funeral saying, “Well, at least he’s in a better place now,” and I won’t be able to argue with them. :-(
I wonder where Cal Thomas will end up…
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CalThomas/2007/02/06/the_race_to_the_bottom
I think it’s quite appropriate he refers to this as a “race to the bottom.”
Psst. Cal. Buddy. You win.
I certainly don’t accept that. It’s fairly inconvenient for me to have them try to convert me when I’m not interested, but why would it make them jerks? They’d be jerks if they didn’t try to make me see the truth about the universe, especially if it could decide my fate for the rest of eternity. I have much less respect for people who think I’m severely deluded and/or doomed, but don’t bother trying an intervention because they don’t want to be rude or something.
They’d be jerks if they didn’t try to make me see the truth about the universe, especially if it could decide my fate for the rest of eternity.
That’s a new way of looking at it. By that logic, I suppose I can’t fault the “God Hates Fags” types for trying to save all those homosouls from hell.
Really? I guess that’s a “charitable” way to think about it. I have to admit that the only times I turn into a “militant” atheist is when some bozo tries to “save” me. Ultimately such people make the unwarranted assumption that the “unsaved” people are incapable of making their own decisions. That’s what’s jerky.
Hallo, Vargas! Our well-grammared trolls return. I for one would like to know how my post calling Badgey an atheist ‘Uncle Tom’ seemed in any way prefab. I’d much like to improve it so it can be much more scathing. I mean, bowing and scraping for some small scrap of recognition from the godd-botherers, honestly.
Bah, what’s the point of being flippant if everybody else takes the time to be more articulate?
The term “god botherers” always makes me laugh. It describes them so well.
Jonathan Badger,
But if you accept, as most of us I would imagine do, that Mormons, evangelicals, etc. are being jerks by trying to convert *us* when we aren’t interested,
Speak for yourself. I’m an atheist and I don’t consider Mormons or anyone else to be “jerks” merely for trying to persuade me to adopt their beliefs. I might consider particular individuals or orgnaizations to be jerks if their behavior were intrusive or disruptive to my life, in the manner of persistent telemarketers or the like, but simply using the media (books, magazines, TV stations, the internet, etc.) to proselytize one’s beliefs is a basic feature of a free society. If you object to the exercise of free speech, including religious speech, I think you’re the jerk.
Speaking of god botherers:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207/ap_on_sc/kenya_fossil_debate;_ylt=AoMn8y8Q01_wFNIzEWfp1RQiANEA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-
Saying (via the media) “This is what we believe and why; we hope this may convince you and if this interests you please contact organization x for further information” is all fine and good. Saying “This is what we believe and you are evil, damned, and/or stupid for believing otherwise” is pretty jerky — and I feel that way even when people are promoting opinions I agree with. Of course people have the *right* to exercise their free speech in a jerky manner; that isn’t the point.
Jonathan Badger,
Saying “This is what we believe and you are evil, damned, and/or stupid for believing otherwise” is pretty jerky
I believe that religious adherents typically think in “stupid” ways (that is, in unreasonable, uncritical, irrational ways) and behave in “evil” ways (that is, in highly unethical ways) when it comes to their religion. I also believe, per Richard Dawkins, that belief in God is a kind of delusion. If you object to the public expression of these beliefs about God and religion, you’re the jerk.
Can you *really* not see that’s *exactly* the way theists see atheists? Ignore for a second the conviction that you’re right. It’s like the Christians mentioned here a few months back that were discomforted when a group of Buddhists gave a prayer during a football game and couldn’t figure out that’s what non-Christians feel during Christian prayer.
And I just know that I’ll have relatives at my funeral saying, “Well, at least he’s in a better place now,” and I won’t be able to argue with them. :-(
Ooh, that gives me an idea. I think I’ll have a sign put over my coffin saying “I’m burning in Hell now.” I mean, I won’t believe it, but it’d be worth it to make certain relatives uncomfortable.
Stogoe, you can say all of that, anytime you bump into any “non-jerk” if you want but, moved by compassion, I suggest you wouldn’t, cause its freaking funny. Gays and black people must be jerks, or be “uncle toms”, hahaha the whole friggin paranoid thing is hilarious.
Keep it up boys, this is fun. Interestingly, Dawkins is not an ill-manered jerk. He mostly says some incredibly silly prejudiced things, which are ultimately worse for himself.
Truth is, anyone can tell that being a jerk simply does not work as far as furthering the acknowledgment of evolution goes.
Oh, I forgot, evolution is a minor issue when it comes to the greater “war on religion”.
Well, no, there isn’t that requirement for atheists. But being non-jerky and not being into spreading the non-faith gets you called a Chamberlain.
You seemed like less of a jerk when you were being disemvoweled.
Hang on, are you actually implying that no atheist ever engages in “being a jerk about it” behavior regarding his or her atheism?
Uh, no, but thanks for playing the “basic comprehension” game, and better luck next time.
I don’t think you can, no. They’re drastically and dangerously wrong, but not evil–if God really did hate fags, wouldn’t it be important to tell people?
I’d fault them for apparent approval of God’s being a bloodthirsty homophobe, though. At least they could look unhappy about it.
But people often are incapable of making their own decisions. They don’t have the necessary knowledge, or critical thinking skills. And sometimes their decision is a very important one. Isn’t that why we have political campaigns, and public service announcements, and public education?
If you decided that stabbing yourself in the eye with a fork would be fun and harmless, I would much rather intervene than respect your decision. And fork-in-the-eye can’t hold a candle to Hell.
Sure, but it doesn’t follow that the Christians aren’t right and the Buddhists wrong (or vice versa). Just because both sides feel the same about the other guy doesn’t mean both sides are equally correct.
Well, I have just as much right to intervene with you in an attempt to prevent you from wasting your one and only life believing in such obvious nonsense. To me, wasting the only life I’ll ever have is as grievous as your concept of hell.
So put that damn fork down, Anton, before someone gets hurt.
Of course not. But that isn’t the point. One doesn’t have to be a relativist to find presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold objectionable.
Sure, it’s important to make information available. Good education and public service announcements make information available to people so that they can make decisions for themselves — telling people that narcotics can cause health problems is not the same as saying they’re evil or that drug users are idiots.
I’m not so sure about the worth of political campaigns; they are mostly about rhetoric and not information. “Vote for Bob; he loves America. Bob — the choice for a renewed America”. Ideally, we wouldn’t need campaigns and because we could just consult a publicly available resource that would detail every politician’s opinion on each issue and simply find the best match to our own.
I’d think I’d have a perfect right to stab myself in the eye if I wanted to. If I starting stabbing *other* people in the eye, then you (or preferably the authorities) should intervene.
Vargas actually makes an accidental point up there at 39 when he says (jokingly) that evolution is just one scuffle in the larger struggle. In that he’s right. Religion has a strangle hold on society and we have a duty to try and save the victim.
Also, he didn’t actually respond to anything I said.
I’ll break it down for you. Atheists are an oppressed class, much like GLBTs and women and all sorts of people with non-white skin colors. People of oppressed classes who dare to speak out against their oppression are called ‘shrill’, ‘agitators’, ‘militant’, ‘feminazis’ in order to shut them up. To make the problem go away. To scare the oppressed class into submission.
Much like Ann Coulter, Badgey and the so-called Chamberlains get adulation and head-pats from the ruling class for tearing down and shutting up the class to which they belong (coulter – women among others, Badgey – atheists), although I would probably say that Coulter gets paid more than Badgey.
When Badgey yells at us not to make waves, not to confront the christians with the blatant falsitude of their hurtful beliefs, to pipe down so the christianists can take over, that’s unacceptable.
“So what?” asks Badgey. “Let them be deluded, the stupid masses. You’re not being harmed.”
Oh, but I am. Religion drives the explosively stupid bus into the Government every single day, throwing up laws that destroy American lives, and it’s all propped up by those who need to believe to get through the day. They’re holding the hierarchy up with their dollars and tears, and it has brought us only war and shame. The top-down approach to dismantling this evil won’t work.
Also, I’m saying he licks Jesus’ ballsweat.
Should he also ignore the scientific evidence that he’s right? Chapter 4 of Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians deals with authoritarianism and fundamentalism, and surprise surprise, fundamentalists really *do* act pretty much exactly the way Jason believes they act (and much more so than non-fundamentalists).
The definition of “delusion” is a little more slippery, but it certainly is a belief not supported by credible evidence. If someone had equally strong faith in Santa Claus, fairies or Bertrand Russell’s teapot, they probably would be classified as deluded.
Interestingly, this also describes quite well Christian attitudes to non-Christians (including atheists) attempting to promote their beliefs. They think it’s really horribly wrong and see no connection whatsoever to their own aggressive (sometimes literally) promotion of their own beliefs. (Altemeyer documents this one too.)
Certainly, when I heard about the group of people going door-to-door to promote atheism, I’d say that anyone whose door they knock on has the right to tell them to get lost, just like I have the right to tell door-to-door Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or any other proselytizers to get lost. That’s religious equality. (Personally I wouldn’t describe such behavior as “jerky” as long as they actually do leave when you ask them to, and aren’t rude or threatening. Others may disagree, though.) But I don’t think anyone got death threats for writing The Purpose-Driven Life or numerous other books on why you should accept Jesus… so why should Dawkins get death and hell threats for The God Delusion? That’s not equal at all.
What I learn from Jonathan Badger is that I’m not enough of a jerk, while ironically he is according to his definition, trying to tell me both how to think and act.
If making my views heard is being a jerk, I am now inspired to work harder on earning my jerkhood.
Vargas always manage to say some incredibly silly and funny things to show us just how ill conceived most of his thoughts really are. I can’t think of many people having such considered opinions as Dawkins – and he has written several books laying them out.
Of course Vargas have to characterize his troll focus as making “prejudiced” statements. But the rest of us hear the echo.
What I learn from Jonathan Badger is that I’m not enough of a jerk, while ironically he is according to his definition, trying to tell me both how to think and act.
If making my views heard is being a jerk, I am now inspired to work harder on earning my jerkhood.
Vargas always manage to say some incredibly silly and funny things to show us just how ill conceived most of his thoughts really are. I can’t think of many people having such considered opinions as Dawkins – and he has written several books laying them out.
Of course Vargas have to characterize his troll focus as making “prejudiced” statements. But the rest of us hear the echo.
“I am now inspired to work harder on earning my jerkhood.” Oh, and I forgot to add: And this is a start. ;-)
“I am now inspired to work harder on earning my jerkhood.” Oh, and I forgot to add: And this is a start. ;-)
Jonathan Badger,
Can you *really* not see that’s *exactly* the way theists see atheists?
I think some theists see atheists in that way. I’m not sure what relevance you think that has to your “jerky” nonsense.
Torbjörn Larsson:
I’m not the boss of you and I’m not going to say you are evil or stupid for thinking and acting the way you do (assuming you aren’t going to go on a murderous rampage or something). I may *disagree* with you and say so and why in some cases, but that’s not the same thing. Not being a jerk doesn’t mean never disagreeing with anyone.
Jason:
Fair enough. Not all, but *some*. The ones that want to “save” the “evil”, “deluded” unbelievers and can’t figure out that we’re not interested. The ones that, if you are truly being serious, you don’t find jerky at all (although I do). That’s the relevance.
Thanks for the plug for the website where I am publishing “The Authoritarians.” And yes, research confirms a lot of stereotypes about religious fundamentalists, and even shows us some things I at least did not imagine. But since the topic here is atheists, there has been some scientific research done on what atheists are like, including the active atheists who are most in the public’s eye. Some warts, many laudable things. It’s in our book, with Bruce Hunsberger, “Atheists” published last year by Prometheus Press. (But this one people will have to buy.)
Jonathan Badger,
I’m still waiting for you to explain what is “jerky” about holding and expressing the view that religious belief is unreasonable and irrational (that is, to use your word, “stupid”) and that it frequently leads people to behave in highly unethical (that is, “evil”) ways. I’m sorry if you don’t like to see that view expressed, but your tender sensibilities will just have to deal with it.
Should he also ignore the scientific evidence that he’s right? Chapter 4 of Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians deals with authoritarianism and fundamentalism, and surprise surprise, fundamentalists really *do* act pretty much exactly the way Jason believes they act (and much more so than non-fundamentalists).
I don’t think it’s limited to fundamentalists. I think religious moderates also deserve the criticism. Take, say, Andrew Sullivan. He is an educated and intelligent man, but when it comes to discussing religion and his own religious beliefs in particular he becomes a blithering idiot–irrational, disingenuous, evasive, foolish. I think his posts in his exchange with Sam Harris demonstrate these qualities in spades.
Whenever in this thread did people get the idea the “being a jerk” was synonymous with “proslytizing”? Proslytizing can be done politely and non-offensively, and if done so, the proslytizer is not a jerk.
“Being-a-jerk-about-it” to me means something like: “Hi, I am a Christian, basking in the light of the Lord’s love, guaranteed a place at his right hand after I die, to live in ecstacy for all eternity.”
Homeless person: “Good morning, I am hungry. Can you help me?”
Jerk: “Fuck off, dude, help yourself, like my Lord says.”
Basically, “being-a-jerk-about-being-Christian” to me means to be self-righteously pompous while acting against the declared basic tenets of the faith.
And while Bronze Dog didn’t say that Scott Adams is a dick, I can. Scott, you’re a dick.
If you really don’t find the theists that feel the same way about atheism to be jerks (as I do), then I suppose it would be impossible for you to see how your behavior could be considered jerky.
It’s hardly my sensibilities which are the issue, although I have to admit that I find being an atheist a bit like being a Linux or Macintosh user (which I also am) — the smugness of some of the Linux and Mac fanboys and their rants against Microsoft can even make fellow users like myself roll their eyes.
Larsson, I am truly sorry that you are incapable of distinguishing silliness when Dawkins talks. Most people know he has said truly very silly things.
Further you seem not to be able to distinguish between academia and best-seller paperback writing. Wake up. The only place where dawkins is taken seriously is at the level of the amateur crowds into naïve scientism. Evolutionary biology? Dawkins has been nobody to the field for most of his time now. Philosophy, history, social sciences? After all, these are the areas to which dawkins is supposedly directing his attention. Again, no merits to overcome academic indifference to his contributions in these fields. This is obvious: Dawkins views in these fileds are simplistic declamations of the excat kind we may expect from a a scientistic “moralizer of reason”. These views are false, and prejudiced indeed.
Vargas once again provides no examples and proves himself the Incarnation of the Courtier’s Reply.
HA! I really laughed out loud at that.
Of course the entire scientistic thing is silly, but Dawkins has given us some specially silly “pearls” to collect that even you guys should be able to recognize… but then again, maybe you can’t. I myself can only laugh at ideas such as keeping saddam alive for experiments…go ahead, you may defend it if you want, but don’t expect much of a response from me. I have no interest in debating about something that is obviously stupid as if it weren’t
|Then again, I am myself both left-handed and an atheist
Wow, That would make you the athiest.
Jonathan Badger,
If you really don’t find the theists that feel the same way about atheism to be jerks ….
I don’t, no. I think they’re wrong to think that, but being wrong is not the same thing as being a jerk. Some of them are jerks anyway, but not for that reason.
… then I suppose it would be impossible for you to see how your behavior could be considered jerky.
No, it’s not impossible. Do you have an actual argument to offer in support of your claim?
It’s hardly my sensibilities which are the issue
On the contrary, I think this is all about your tender sensibilities.
He doesn’t believe in the death penalty.
And what is stupid about studying someone like Saddam in order to better understand the mind of a tyrannical murderer?
We have no interest debating your stupid arguments either.
Oh, Vargas got the vapors when mean ol mista Dawkins spoke up against the hanging of Saddam as terrorporn.
No, I got the giggles, because dawkins is giving science as a reason not to hang him. I guess dawkins really needs that, since he is all about “moralizing” through science. Otherwise he might not have found any compelling reason why saddam should not have been hanged. Cute.
I am against death penalty, but for other reasons. You guys don’t get it, ever. See why debating with you guys can be so boring? Specially when you are intent on “licking the sweat of Dawkins balls” (in the language of Stogoe).
Did you miss the whole opening to that opinion piece, Vargas? If you had, you’d have seen ‘among the many other good reasons not to hang this despot, we could have learned the workings of despotic madness from him’ (paraphrase).
Go back to your terrorporn, Vargas. You don’t make any sense.
So, we agree that the reason given by Dawkins is at least superfluous; there are many others, and if we had to choose, nobody would choose Dawkins’s reason.
I just want to add that as well as being superfluous, it is sloppy, silly speculation of the paperback-selling type. How does dawkins plan to obtain anything information we don’t already know about dictators? Exactly what he had in mind to do to Saddam? All alternatives I can think of are hilarious.
Vargas, we went over this quite some time ago, and your repetition is really, really tedious. It may be time to give you another time-out.
I was wondering, how come I am not disemvowelled already? After all I am exposing Dawkins. That gets me disemvowelled here almost every time!
OK PZ, I’m not interested in keeeping on, so don’t worry. You can keep your record of non- censoring for some while longer, but seriously: you should allow people to express whatever they think about dawkins, PZ. That’s the right thing, what is best for all. It can’t be that you allow jerkness when talking about anyone *but* Dawkins. Allow people to criticize dawkins in any tone they want. It is as simple as that.
Alexander Vargas | February 7, 2007 05:39 PM
(sniffs)
Do I detect the smell of burning martyr?
That’s exactly what I’m trying to explain to Jonathan. Neither a believer nor an unbeliever is being a jerk if they try to convert someone for the sake of his quality of life, or to make him a better contributor to society. (At least) one of them’s factually wrong, but they’re both doing good as best they can.
Public education does a lot more than make information available to people. It forces people to sit down for several hours per weekday, until they’re 18 or Amish, and learn the information. Mandatory schooling is far more intrusive than a dozen Jehovah’s Witnesses–but most of us accept it, because there are some things that people really need to learn. Whether or not they “decide” to.
I think you’ve changed direction here. Originally your complaint was that it’s jerky to be too into conversion and “spreading the non-faith.” What does that have to do with whether or not you call people names?
So if someone said “Hmm, I wonder what happens if I stab myself in the eye? Better try it and see!”, you wouldn’t say, “Now hold on, that’s a terrible idea. Let me tell you why you really don’t want to do that?” You’d just let them make their decision without intruding?
Huh.
Truth is, anyone can tell that being a jerk simply does not work as far as furthering the acknowledgment of evolution goes.
neither does being an idiot, as you prove to us whenever you regail us with your “thoughts”, Vargas.
Not really. It stems from the same source; the idea that people that one disagrees with must be evil or stupid and must therefore be converted. Once one realizes that others are not necessarily stupid or evil and have simply come to a different conclusion the motivation for conversion disappears. This is true for religion (or lack thereof), politics, and operating system choice.
<>I find being an atheist a bit like being a Linux or Macintosh user
Except that religion does a lot more actual harm than Microsoft.
I just became an atheist rather recently, after years of head-scratching agnosticism, and here’s my reasoning, which I wonder if someone would comment on, either positively or negatively. To me the whole thing boils down to a willingness to understand that the world does not bend to your own personal wishes. One of the big shocks of childhood for all of us is the realization that we and everyone we love will die one day. It would be nice if it wasn’t true, but there you have it, and when a child gets his head around this fact and accepts it, his parents are proud: he’s taken a step toward maturity. But THEN we’re all supposed to buy into the idea, on no credible evidence whatsoever, that death isn’t really the end, and those of us who live “righteously” will have eternal life after all? What is the decision to seize at this idea, if not a step backward from maturity? That’s what religious people are to me: not evil, not deluded…just not entirely grown up.
Jonathan:
This started because you implied non-Chamberlain atheists were jerks. Here you say that disagreement is allowed. All non-Chamberlain atheists do is disagree with theists, in “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold”.
And that is what this is about. Either you agree that one can state general opinions without being a jerk. Or you disagree by presenting your general opinion as the only one we should hold, in which case you are a jerk by your own definition.
Alexander:
Strawman. I didn’t claim he hadn’t said silly things. I objected to your characterizing his thoughts as prejudiced.
Another strawman. I wasn’t discussing his science – I was discussing his opinions.
And as several has noted, in his writings about religion he is targeting the religious, not the theologists. The Courtiers Response is becoming tedious. And false. And prejudiced.
Jonathan:
This started because you implied non-Chamberlain atheists were jerks. Here you say that disagreement is allowed. All non-Chamberlain atheists do is disagree with theists, in “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold”.
And that is what this is about. Either you agree that one can state general opinions without being a jerk. Or you disagree by presenting your general opinion as the only one we should hold, in which case you are a jerk by your own definition.
Alexander:
Strawman. I didn’t claim he hadn’t said silly things. I objected to your characterizing his thoughts as prejudiced.
Another strawman. I wasn’t discussing his science – I was discussing his opinions.
And as several has noted, in his writings about religion he is targeting the religious, not the theologists. The Courtiers Response is becoming tedious. And false. And prejudiced.
Anton Mates wrote: That’s exactly what I’m trying to explain to Jonathan. Neither a believer nor an unbeliever is being a jerk if they try to convert someone for the sake of his quality of life, or to make him a better contributor to society.
Wasn’t that the goal of gulags and re-education camps?
That’s what religious people are to me: not evil, not deluded…just not entirely grown up.
When I was religious, I cherished the thought that there was something out there that would care whether I lived or died even if no one else did. That was much more important to me than the thought of living forever (though that was a comfort as well). Human love seemed small and empty to me, because people can stop loving you, or die, or not be there when you need them. The idea of being utterly, completely alone with myself was too terrifying to imagine. When I stopped believing in a god, it took some time before I could really appreciate that human love, however fragile, is real, and that occasionally being the only one to care what I do isn’t the end of the world.
I think when most religious people ask why you would want to be good if there’s no god, they really want to know why you would want to live if there’s no god. I don’t think they imagine themselves raping and murdering with abandon if they ever stopped believing. I think they imagine themselves dying of despair.
Thanks for the input, junk science. I hadn’t thought about it that way before.
Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians, recommended in comment #49, is a very good read. Thanks, Chris.
No windy. That wasn’t the goal of the gulags. Enemies of the state mean anything to you?
Anton wasn’t talking about obedience. Conversion can come about through conversation and education.
I’m just pointing out the fact that Dawkins’s opinions fail to be taken seriously by the academia. Do not delude yourselves into thinking he is a great scientist of intellectual. If this is a courtier reply, so be it! It is not less true for that, so I will point it out anyway. Academia is academia, pop writing is pop writing.
I understand that if you feel invaded by religion, and if you like science, yet are basically ignorant in philosophy and social sciences, Dawkins may make a very big impression on you. You may even love him.
But to those who have previously accumulated other readings, Dawkins does not impress. Rather, we can be apalled by the silliness of many of his statements. Does this really help atheism?
The record. It’s skips. Is it broken?
Vargas:
You’ve made your opinion of Dawkins very clear, and very boring. Others, academics included, have other opinions of his corpus. Here’s a recent compendium, in fact it’s a festschrift with many useful essays:
Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think: Reflections by Scientists, Writers, and Philosophers by Alan Grafen and Mark Ridley, 2006.
Grafen is a behavioral ecologist; Ridley is an evolutionary biologist.
…and you’d be less boring if you enlarged your commentary to Dawkins’ conceptual origins which I’m confident you’re familiar with (in addition to his mentor Nikko Tinbergen): George Williams and W. D. Hamilton, both venerated academics.
You can do better. Please do.
But since the post was about no “not-being-a-jerk-about-it” requirement for atheists, your opinions about his academic status and silliness of his claims are both besides the point, and boring to boot.
You would be better off joining the original discussion instead.
But since the post was about no “not-being-a-jerk-about-it” requirement for atheists, your opinions about his academic status and silliness of his claims are both besides the point, and boring to boot.
You would be better off joining the original discussion instead.
No windy. That wasn’t the goal of the gulags. Enemies of the state mean anything to you?
And they were ostensibly being re-educated to become productive members of society :)
Anton wasn’t talking about obedience. Conversion can come about through conversation and education.
I had in mind also his earlier comment that the God-hates-fags types are not really being jerks – I guess, because they sincerely believe that they are saving other people from hell? But that would mean that the Spanish Inquisition were not being jerks either…
C’mon , thwaite. Invoking conceptual origins is not a very hot indicator of academic merit, isn’t it. Plus, you may not know this, but the names Williams and Hamilton are not greeted by as many “ooooh”s and “aaaaah”s in evolutionary biology as you may think…
Actually, Windy, the Inquisitors of the Spanish Inquisition didn’t care one wit about saving the souls of the ex-Jews, they were doing their jobs in order to raise money for the King of Spain’s coffers.
I do agree though that Williams and Hamilton are indeed “venerated” (good term) within specific schools of evolutionary biology. For example Icthyic. He belongs to that school and hardly acknowledges that paleontologists or developmental biologists should be allowed to call themselves evolutionary biologists. Not even Gould. Cute.
Population genetics is very popular because it gives mathematical formality to evolutionary theory, and it answers specific questions. But it can only help so far to understand evolution. It is badly wanting in biological detail. Further there is always some kind of “black box” of simply “given” conditions … how many times have we seen already that a basic biolgical reality or proximal mechanism required for a completely different model?
Mathematics is used everywhere in biology, but in many different forms for different questions, from technical to theoretical aspects. The math of population gentics is one of these, and it works pretty well for certain questions about…well, population genetics. Statistics developed its tools in that field and is currently applied outside of biology. There certainly is merit, but evolutionary theory is in no way realistically condensed within population genetics.
Mathematics is so popular right now, it seems to me nobody could revolutionize evolutionary theory without presenting a mathematical formalization.
Yet Darwin was able to make his point with a book on natural history… not all times have been so frivolous and interested in “appearing intelligent” as these.
The point is certain theists and certain atheists under discussion (not all of either category) *don’t* disagree in “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold”. They merely disagree on what the beliefs are.
Again no. Stating beliefs and even arguing in favor of those beliefs is not the same as “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold”.
That seems exactly backwards to me. If people disagree with you because they’re evil or stupid, attempting conversion is pointless–all you can do is try to avoid them and minimize their power over you. But if people disagree with you but aren’t evil or stupid, then they might potentially see things your way if you made a good argument for it. Or you might change your mind and join them–either way, there’s a reason for dialogue.
Unless you’re just doing it to score brownie points within your own faith system, rather than in the hope that it’ll actually work, proselytization requires a certain amount of intellectual charity.
I’m totally concluding from this that God exists and that he wants me to have your posts days before you do. You cannot doubt in the face of conclusive proof!
Then again, you didn’t give me a link…so maybe only Satan exists.
I might add that the above is certainly true in the case of an ex-Pentecostal youth minister I know. While Christian, he was very zealous about conversion, and that precisely because he really likes people–he thinks they’re generally good enough and smart enough that they should and can understand the truth about the world.
(As a result of his sincere interest in conversion, he had a ton of arguments with atheists, read a lot of atheist literature and ended up becoming one himself. But I don’t think he was unique as a Christian who tried to convert out of compassion.)
Yep, as well as the goal of every national school system, Martin Luther King, and Jesus. Thus, high school, the civil rights movement and Christianity are all Stalin’s fault.
I don’t know the internal motivations of the inquisitors, but sure–I think there’s a fair likelihood many thought they were working for a good cause. Many others may have been consciously motivated by greed or sadism, of course.
I think it’s rather important to distinguish “This person is doing something I think will have negative effects” from “This person is evil.”
You’d think so; but that’s not the way it seems to work in practice. Telling people that they’re hellbound, deluded servants of Microsoft, or as stupid as little children who believe in Santa, are unlikely to be effective tactics, but they are commonly used by certain groups of zealous converters.
Right. Dialogue (where both parties are actually interested in having the dialogue and one party isn’t just speaking *at* the other) can only exist when one accepts the other side isn’t stupid or evil. If someone notices that I’m not running Windows on my laptop, I’ll tell them that it’s Linux, and then (only if they seem interested) we can talk about operating systems and their relative advantages.
There’s also the fact that it allows the proselytizer to feel superior to proselytizees.
Certainly, as they should.
How is “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold” not a belief?
It could be annoying, but it is still just an opinion, or possibly a justified claim.
You also forgot to explain how your opinion that some general opinions should not be stated as they are does not make you a jerk by your own argument.
Certainly, as they should.
How is “presenting one’s beliefs publicly as the only beliefs that intelligent or moral people can hold” not a belief?
It could be annoying, but it is still just an opinion, or possibly a justified claim.
You also forgot to explain how your opinion that some general opinions should not be stated as they are does not make you a jerk by your own argument.
Because it isn’t a belief. It’s a *behavior*.
No, as I’ve already stated, I’m not saying that people who disagree with me are either unintelligent or immoral. If I did, I would fully agree that I was being a jerk by doing so. But I’m not doing that.
I’m fairly confident very few people seriously try to convert someone else to their platform by telling them they’ll go to Hell for using the wrong OS.
Beyond that, though, you don’t want to confuse attacking an idea with attacking the person. An ethical and intelligent person may nonetheless be deluded in some area–or may be hellbound if certain religious beliefs are correct. If so, it’s rather important to demonstrate it so that, being ethical and intelligent, the person will change their mind.
Case in point: if belief in God is as silly for a modern adult as belief in Santa Claus, then it’s important that believers know that. Most of them are clearly smart enough to reject Santa Claus as adults, so hopefully they can do the same for God if they see the parallels between the concepts and evidence for same.
That’s accomplished more quickly and easily by simply writing them off as inherently evil and stupid, and therefore not worth arguing with. Then you don’t risk finding out that they might be right about something.
Presenting beliefs or opinions or justified claims, one time or many, is a behavior all right. What is your point here?
Stating that people are unintelligent or immoral is an opinion, in the absence of measures. You have not proposed any measure to distinguish this opinion from other such. I get the impression that this is important for you – is it hard, and if it is why do you think it so?
And again, you have not yet explained how your opinion that some general opinions should not be stated as they are does not make you a jerk by your own argument. I repeat this since it is IMO the main problem with your view on free speech and how it should be valued.
Presenting beliefs or opinions or justified claims, one time or many, is a behavior all right. What is your point here?
Stating that people are unintelligent or immoral is an opinion, in the absence of measures. You have not proposed any measure to distinguish this opinion from other such. I get the impression that this is important for you – is it hard, and if it is why do you think it so?
And again, you have not yet explained how your opinion that some general opinions should not be stated as they are does not make you a jerk by your own argument. I repeat this since it is IMO the main problem with your view on free speech and how it should be valued.